2013 (8) TMI 912 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the review petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.07.2012 and satisfies the criteria for entertaining the same in review jurisdiction?

Summary

The core legal question considered by the Court in this judgment is whether the petitioner has made out a sufficient case for review of the earlier judgment and order dated 06.07.2012, which quashed FIR No. 0062003A0019 of 2003. This FIR was lodged by the CBI against Ms. Mayawati concerning allegations of disproportionate assets, in connection with the Taj Heritage Corridor Project investigation. The review petition challenges the quashing of this FIR and seeks reinstatement of the investigation.

In addressing this, the Court also considered the scope and ambit of the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), and Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. The Court examined the principles governing review petitions, especially in criminal proceedings, and the distinction between review and appeal. The Court also analyzed the factual and legal basis of the original order quashing the FIR, including the directions issued by the Court in earlier proceedings related to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project.

The Court's detailed analysis focused on the following issues:

1. Scope and Grounds for Review Jurisdiction

The Court extensively reviewed the legal framework governing review petitions. Article 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments or orders, subject to any law or rules under Article 145. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permits review on limited grounds: discovery of new and important evidence not available earlier despite due diligence; mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds. In criminal proceedings, per Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, review is entertained only on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court reiterated that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to reargue or reappreciate evidence or to seek a rehearing. It is a remedy available only in exceptional cases where a glaring omission, patent mistake, or manifest error apparent on the record undermines the soundness of the earlier decision or results in miscarriage of justice. Mere disagreement with the Court's view or the possibility of an alternative view does not justify review. The error must be self-evident and not require elaborate argument or reasoning to be detected.

The Court cited multiple precedents to underscore these principles, including Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib, M/s Northern India Caterers Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, and Lily Thomas v. Union of India. These cases emphasize the limited and circumspect nature of review jurisdiction, the inadmissibility of reappreciation of evidence in review, and the requirement that errors be patent and apparent on the face of the record.

2. Application of Review Principles to the Present Case

The Court examined the factual matrix and the legal basis of the original order dated 06.07.2012, which quashed the FIR No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 lodged against Ms. Mayawati. The FIR pertained to allegations of disproportionate assets and was registered by the CBI following earlier Supreme Court orders directing inquiry into the Taj Heritage Corridor Project.

The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged pursuant to directions of this Court and that the investigation should be allowed to proceed to uphold the rule of law. Reliance was placed on precedents such as H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi and Vineet Narain v. Union of India, which emphasize the judiciary's duty to ensure proper investigation and prosecution when a prima facie case exists.

The Court carefully reviewed the earlier orders passed in the Taj Corridor matter, including those dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003, 11.09.2003, and 18.09.2003. It noted that the earlier directions related specifically to the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and the release of Rs. 17 crores without proper sanction. The Court found that none of these orders contained any specific direction to lodge an FIR against Ms. Mayawati for disproportionate assets beyond the scope of the Taj Corridor investigation.

It was observed that the CBI had exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging the second FIR (No. 0062003A0019) without any direction or satisfaction recorded by the Court regarding a disproportionate assets case against Ms. Mayawati. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was not a party to the original writ petition concerning the Taj Corridor Project and that no material was placed before the Court to justify the disproportionate assets inquiry.

The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, which mandates that the Court must be satisfied of a prima facie case before directing CBI investigation and that affected persons must be given an opportunity of hearing. Since no such satisfaction or direction was recorded, the lodging of the FIR was held to be without jurisdiction.

3. Treatment of Competing Arguments

The petitioner's argument that the Court should intervene to ensure that the CBI proceeds with the investigation was considered but found insufficient to justify review. The Court held that the same arguments had been fully addressed in the earlier judgment, and no new or important matter or error apparent on the face of the record was brought to light. The Court also clarified that it had not examined any other aspects of the CBI's claims or the writ petitioner's stand beyond the Taj Corridor Project.

The Court reiterated that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue settled points or to substitute the Court's view with an alternative perspective. The principles enunciated in precedents were applied to reject the review petition as misconceived and devoid of substance.

4. Final Conclusions

The Court concluded that the review petition did not satisfy the stringent criteria for review under Article 137, Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules. There was no discovery of new evidence, no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and no other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds. The order quashing the FIR was based on a proper reading of the facts and law, and the CBI had exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging the FIR without any direction from the Court.

The review petition was accordingly dismissed with observations that the decision was confined strictly to the subject matter of the Taj Heritage Corridor Project and the directions issued in that context.

Significant Holdings and Core Principles Established:

"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility... A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient."

"In a criminal proceeding, review is permissible on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case."

"An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review."

"The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review."

"Only when this Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for investigation by CBI for the alleged offence, an order directing inquiry by CBI could be passed and that too after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected person."

"Since the order dated 18-9-2003 does not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against the petitioner, CBI is not justified in proceeding with FIR No. RC 0062003A0019 dated 5-10-2003."

"Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same."

In sum, the Court reaffirmed the narrow and exceptional nature of review jurisdiction, emphasized the necessity of a patent and self-evident error for review, and upheld the quashing of the FIR on the ground that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging it without any specific direction or prima facie satisfaction by the Court. The review petition was dismissed accordingly.